Re^5: Questions about sharing code (@EXPORT

And all of those reasons are great reasons. The reason I do it for all my OO CPAN modules (and most of mine are OO) is that I don't want $obj->weaken() to be a possibility. Particularly if weaken() is a method in my base class.

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re^5: Questions about sharing code (@EXPORT_OK++)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Questions about sharing code (@EXPORT_OK++) by tye (Sage) on Nov 28, 2007 at 17:54 UTC
There are more problems than that. This is why I usually write classes with separate packages for class methods, object methods, and utility functions~~methods~~. Unfortunately, caller and thus SUPER: and its ilk are still too stupid to deal with code that actually prevents such method confusion: `package My::Class::_implement; use Scalar::Util qw( weaken ); sub My::Class::new { # ... } sub My::Class::Object::method { # ... weaken( $someRef ); # ... }` [download] Yes, you can abstract out having to re-type class names fairly easily; this is just a quick example. - tye	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Questions about sharing code (@EXPORT_OK++)
by tye (Sage) on Nov 28, 2007 at 17:54 UTC

There are more problems than that. This is why I usually write classes with separate packages for class methods, object methods, and utility functions~~methods~~. Unfortunately, caller and thus SUPER: and its ilk are still too stupid to deal with code that actually prevents such method confusion:

package My::Class::_implement;
use Scalar::Util qw( weaken );

sub My::Class::new {
    # ...
}

sub My::Class::Object::method {
    # ...
    weaken( $someRef );
    # ...
}
[download]

Yes, you can abstract out having to re-type class names fairly easily; this is just a quick example.

- tye

[reply]
[d/l]